Jump to content


Photo

Vc's And Shooting To Kill


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1322 PM

Th US did the same when it abandoned the BAR for the automatic selector on the M14, Colin. In no way equivalent. I have fired both, when they were in service with the USN and USMC, respectively, in 1969-71. 



#22 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1702 PM

Th US did the same when it abandoned the BAR for the automatic selector on the M14, Colin. In no way equivalent. I have fired both, when they were in service with the USN and USMC, respectively, in 1969-71. 

So M60s were pushed down to squads.



#23 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,643 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1707 PM

Were M60s ever used by TOE in US army rifle squad or by marine squads or were they only in FS squads? Ofc, field improvisations do not count...


Edited by bojan, 19 June 2017 - 1707 PM.


#24 Tim Sielbeck

Tim Sielbeck

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Tanks, Steel Beasts, WW1 aviation, Epees

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1802 PM

According to ST17-1-1, 1977 and '81, in a rifle company of an infantry battalion, the platoon headquarters had two M-60s and none in the squads.  And in mech infantry each squad also had an M-60 in addition to the two in the platoon headquarters.



#25 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 19 June 2017 - 1808 PM

I was referring to field expedient use. 


Edited by shep854, 19 June 2017 - 1808 PM.


#26 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 June 2017 - 0019 AM

An M60 does not replace a BAR or AR. An M60 requires a crew. 



#27 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 20 June 2017 - 0823 AM

An M60 does not replace a BAR or AR. An M60 requires a crew. 

True, but soldiers carried them anyway, to get as much firepower as possible.  It's similar to British patrols lugging MAGs around A'stan, for the long-range capability.

I have a memoir of a Marine company commander in Vietnam who, upon taking command, found most of his Marines had selectors on their M14s (along with many other 'modifications' to TO&E)



#28 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 June 2017 - 1515 PM

Firepower for what period of time? Think about it.



#29 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,876 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 20 June 2017 - 1715 PM

Firepower for what period of time? Think about it.

Point, Ken.  Apparently troops facing contact take a rather short-sighted perspective.  They seem to grab as many weapons as they can get away with.



#30 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle
  • Interests:USMC Tanker, Historian

Posted 20 June 2017 - 2252 PM

Sure, and that can often include captured enemy weapons as well. Hmmmm, what's the DODIC number for ordering enemy ammunition? Many USMC tanks in Korea carried numerous captured or scrounged small arms. It perhaps made them feel good, but their M26/46 did not operate any better.

 

Carrying a LMG on a combat patrol or in the rifle squad adds considerably to the soldier's load, every man carrying a 100 rd belt in addition to his own basic load. This is why we have an endless search for a SAW.

 

 

[ETA:] And then there is this:

 

http://www.military....RC=eb_170613.nl

 

The whole thing in the hands of a W-5? Will we ever be free of Weapons Training Battalion and their warrant officers? I had no idea the Marine Division needed a W-5 "Gunner."

 

Where is EchoMikeFive when you need him?


Edited by Ken Estes, 20 June 2017 - 2315 PM.


#31 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 27 June 2017 - 0847 AM

There's a lot of issues to be addressed.  But people can think on this by asking themselves some basic questions.

 

1.  Why does the grunt wanna carry more weight?  He doesn't, so when he's carrying more shit, you can be really certain he really thinks he needs it.  Now, sometimes this is merely "feel good" voodoo.  But only sometimes.

2.  Why does the grunt want more "firepower"?  Why does he want organic control of fires that are normally delivered by supporting arms?(which is the logical way to do it)  He's doesn't, but he doesn't trust the REMF's to deliver because those career fixated people are saying "no."

 

The guy with "eyes on", the guy on the trigger is stuck in the middle of this shit show.  He wants to accomplish the mission, he wants to survive and keep his men alive, he wants to keep his bosses happy, but there's a lot of mutually exclusive demands here, and some are going to suffer to accomplish others.  S/F....Ken M  



#32 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,483 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 27 June 2017 - 1016 AM

Something else, USMC went to officers and SNCO's being issued rifles or M4's instead of M9's.  My reserve battalion did this unilaterally before OIF2 in 2004.  There's a lot of weird neurosis involving issue of pistols, issue of more than one weapon to an individual and an overall shameful emphasis on logistical simplicity over on target/mission effectiveness.  Maybe if we were more selective in recruitment, our officer and senior SNCO corps wouldn't be so neurotic about some LCpl stealing an M9 and ruining said officer/SNCO career.  Maybe if we didn't have such a pathetic culture of weapon fetishization, that might help too.  Although our ethnic minority recruitment raw numbers might suffer, we'll probably get a better quality product who might not need retraining in holding their gun sideways.  

 

"Here PFC Shithead, this is your rifle with SL-3 gear, it costs $1842(or some other exaggerated gold plated toilet number)  You either have it at your EAS, or you'll be on legal hold breaking rocks until you've paid for it." 

 

It's just a rifle, you can buy far superior at "Jimmy's Guns, Booze and Porn Emporium."  It's like that phrase about scoring touchdowns, act like you've done it before.....same mindset required.

 

Which leads me to another thing, every "tactical" vehicle in the inventor should have a stinking machine gun and VHF radio as SL-3 gear.  S/F....Ken M






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users